PRAVEEN KUMAR KHARE AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
WRIC/10532/2025 · 2025-10-29
Prashant Kumar, Shekhar B Saraf
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 184149 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 184149 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10532 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
1. 'Vakalatnama' filed by Shri Praveen Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 5 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made following main prayer(s):
"i) Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashed and set aside the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the opposite party no.3 in Case No. D202510460001006, under section -14 (SARFAESI Act) 2002; Bank of Maharashtra versus Praveen Kumar Khare in very illegal and arbitrary manner and ignoring of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law and rules and passed the order against the constitutional rights , (contained as Annexure No. 1) to this petition, in the interest of justice. ii) To Issue order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties concerned to not to further continue the proceedings in of the dated pursuance 03.10.2025, in the interest of justice."
4. This writ petition is misconceived as the same has been filed against an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Kant Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Praveen Kumar Khare And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2002') and the petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter should be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a proceeding under the Act, 2002 is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. 7. In light of the same, we direct the petitioners to file fresh application, if they so desire, with regard to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 by the authority concerned. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
October 29, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 10532 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench